Blog: Secularism is consensual togetherness of believer and non-believer

Literature is an excellent medium to grasp a concept, because not only will you be exposed to a vast repertoire of writings explaining a concept, but also counter-arguments, a full-fledged body of criticisms that will jolt your analytical capabilities and force you to think critically.

The idea of secularity has always intrigued me. Living in a polytheist country like India, secularity often emerges during regular coffee-table discussions. Secularity, in my opinion, is an elusive bird, when you feel you have it, in that very finite moment, it escapes you.

In this piece, I will touch upon the work of two celebrated scholars in their respective fields -- Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor and English biologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins. One has his views deeply rooted in philosophy, the other one is a man of science and reason. Their varying notions on secularity and religion caught my fancy, prompting me to re-read their work that has religion and the concept of secularity at its heart.

For centuries, man has been in conflict with those of his kind who broke away and started believing in something different. These people brought about other forms of beliefs and systems into existence. It’s a never-ending tale of human survival and evolution there shall always be a creator, and then there is a disruptor who will bring about something new. I believe secularity rests on the premise of co-existence it is all about achieving a balance between the old and the new, the consensual togetherness of a believer and a non-believer.

Who is a believer and how is he different from a non-believer?

“Belief in God is no longer static. There are alternatives,” Charles Taylor notes in his essay - A Secular Age, 2007.

Charles Taylor is a philosopher. His education in political science and philosophy emanates from his critically philosophical yet accommodating views on religion.

Dawkins, on the other hand, is an evolutionary biologist who blatantly bats off religious philosophies with his views backed by facts and evidence.

For Taylor, a non-believer is someone who might most likely be an atheist, the one who “cannot find the fullness of peace and a sense of satisfaction and completeness in his life.”

Dawkins, on the other hand, sees it very critically, suggesting that a person’s beliefs are the immediate produce of the education he has received, and not necessarily his “childhood indoctrination.”

For Dawkins, “to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled,” he notes in his critically acclaimed book, The God Delusion, 2006.

So where does secularity come into play between all this?

In my opinion, disbelief stems from the critical and rational conditioning of the mind, it is an urge to question the status quo, or what has been. In that sense, science does at times stand against long-standing, archaic beliefs, even the religious ones.

Dawkins is a ‘non-believer’ an atheist who holds his beliefs after a critical examination of the existing order and religious doctrine. A ‘believer’ is also capable of such critical thinking and logical reasoning. Taylor is a ‘believer’ a philosopher who is capable of critically examining the nature of religious beliefs and other systems. His take on religion and secularism is an optimistic one and his choice to practice Roman Catholicism is based on the application of his rationale and critical thought.

A theist and an atheist both can be secular -- if they are capable of critical thought and thereby take the responsibility of their beliefs. They must believe in the idea of co-existence, accommodating those who choose to differ.

Unfortunately, it is those few ‘believers’ who lack criticality and decide to live in a total denial of the existence of other religious sects or the event of their beliefs getting exposed to scepticism.

All in all, secularity does not mean the fall of old traditions in the wake of the emergence of new beliefs, rather it is a dynamic phenomenon that carries forward what is described as ‘traditional’, making room for the non-conformists or those who choose to follow something else.

I see secularity as a tool that enables building a freer and more tolerant world where, as Charles Taylor opines, public spaces are getting emptied of religion, yet it doesn’t mean the dying away of the traditional values. It translates into the co-existence of “new inventions, newly constructed self-understandings and related practices’’ and the freedom to make individual choices.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)